The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Climate apocalypse postponed > Comments

Climate apocalypse postponed : Comments

By Mark S. Lawson, published 1/9/2010

Seasonal weather forecasting has a dismal track record.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Mark I think you should focus your prodigious intellect on something like curing Cancer. Your ability to sweep away a whole scientific field with a simple wave of your opinion, curing cancer should be a doddle. It would also be a fine legacy for a man such as yourself. We could build statues to your magnificent with relevant epitaph like “He swept away all be that was before him and gave us his opinion” or “he did science his bugga the rest of them, they are wrong”.
Posted by Kenny, Wednesday, 1 September 2010 9:44:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Doomsayers have been around perhaps since the time that humans learnt to talk.

The end of the world is Nigh.

Even christianity preached the apocalypse.
Posted by JamesH, Wednesday, 1 September 2010 10:16:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reminds me of the Bali farce, where the AGW myth was supported by Ban Kimoon’s carefully drafted speech to 12,000 media personnel, who were wined dined and lied to. Scientists who wished to tell the truth were excluded. Monckton gained access but was constrained from addressing any groups, and on one occasion was assaulted.

An extract of the Ban Kimoon presentation:

“unless we act, there will be serious consequences: rising sea levels; more frequent and less predictable floods and severe droughts; famine around the world, particularly in Africa and Central Asia; and the loss of up to a third of our plant and animal species”

Sea levels did not rise, floods and droughts became no more frequent and no less predictable, famine occurs as usual, and unless the rules of evolution change, plant and animal species will continue to become extinct.

Fortunately, we did not act, and the Copenhagen farce was hopefully the swansong of the AGW nonsense.

We are now aware that global warming comes about through natural cycles, as described by Mark, and human emissions have no measureable effect.

The annual prediction of “world’s hottest year yet”, is laughable, but there are sinister overtones.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 1 September 2010 11:01:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark Lawson here.
Kenny - you flatteringly over-estimate the effect of my piece. I deliberately said nothing whatever about climate theory, as such. I stuck to what is known and widely accepted. Temperatures will fall over the next year or so, because of the el Nino effect. This is indisputable and its all I really said about future climate. But we can also say that the groups who made the "hottest year" forecast should have been much more cautious in making it, and ask ourselves why, despite all the past failures in seasonal forecasts, they were not more cautious.
If curing cancer were a matter of making obvious statements based on widely accepted propositions then I guess it would have been done long ago.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 1 September 2010 11:15:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Excellent piece Mark, and also the reply. And I strongly recommend Mark's book to all of you. Correct predictions are the basis of all science, including so-called climate science. The failure of its predictions will be the end of it sooner than later.
Posted by Tom Tiddler, Wednesday, 1 September 2010 11:49:27 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is the book also full of obvious statements based on widely accepted propositions?
Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 1 September 2010 1:56:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
At last. A bit of objectivity. Thanks Mark for writing this excellent article.
Posted by Cheryl, Wednesday, 1 September 2010 2:27:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Noah seemed to be the last person to get it right.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 1 September 2010 3:01:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tom Tiddler - thanks for the boost. Much appreciated.

Bugsy - in fact I like to think I adopt a reasoned approach in the book, but that does mean I go further into demolishing the climate orthodoxy. However, the article sticks strictly to the obvious and the well established. Temperatures are going to decline over the next year or so at a minimum, but we can check them off against my suggested benchmark to see how this la Nina compares against the previous cycle.
This is obviously not the doom and gloom of vast temperature increases constantly forecast by global warmers but that cannot be helped
Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 1 September 2010 4:13:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RUNNER! Hi 5 Mate :)

I wonder of any of the 'climate change' faitful have looked at the fraudulent work of the IPCC ?

Just for your information...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/04/2810784.htm

Note the words...

"I believe that the scientific evidence that is provided by the IPCC has not been shaken in spite of the very unfortunate mistake," said de Boer.

Hmmm "AAaah beliEVEEEEE... yesssssir..Ah believe...!"

Seems just a tad subjective and vested interest like to me
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Wednesday, 1 September 2010 5:54:46 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So over the last 10 yrs we have had an expodential growth of carbon emissions and global temps have fallen.

Why then the urgency for a carbon tax? As realed at Copenhagen by Monckton an others,it is all about financing a "New World Order" or world Govt run by a cabal of corporate interests.

How much democracy do you think we will be able to exercise? Our elections at the moment are a farce with corporate funds dictating how the major parties Govern.
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 1 September 2010 6:36:16 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not long ago you would have been almost burned at the stake for uttering such heresy, Mark.

By not long ago I mean last year. During the last Xmas period sceptical sites mysteriously disappeared from Google for a while. All opposing views were crushed. Plimer was villified by the ABC and others, David Suzuki wanted to jail non-believers, former Clinton official Joe Romm said that climate deniers would be 'strangled in their beds' and NASA's James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008 for "high crimes against humanity.”. Great stuff from eminent 'scientists'!

Then Copenhagen came and the world realised no-one really believed in the idea enough to sign an agreement and everyone just went home and forgot about it - for a while. But there was too much money invested in Carbon Trading for this to go away completely. So it is encouraging to see someone presenting the other side of the story.

I admire your attempt to appeal to simple logic and clear thought but I fear that the Carbonophobics, who are driven by zealotry and emotion, probably won't be swayed.
Posted by Atman, Wednesday, 1 September 2010 8:30:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark Lawson here
Atman - true. I was too late to be villified, but I think the real break was not copenhagen but the climategate emails. That seemed to break the spell. After that there was a distinct reducion in articles and posts on climate, and fewer people claiming it was all gospel. The "hottest year" declarations got pushed back in the paper.. with temperatures falling over the next few years as they are expected to do the heat will go out of the debate (pun intended). It may happen even faster if carbon diox concentrations in the air start falling by themselves.. may yet happen..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 2 September 2010 11:54:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I picked up Mark's book from Abbeys in York Street today and look forward to reading it as soon as I finish "The Puritan Gift", an incredible book on the degradation of American business, through promotion of the corrosive "Cult of the Expert".

I wonder how all the money losing "green industries" will fare, when people finally realise the truth about the AGW fraud, and the poll driven politicians, who backed the emissions nonsense while the electorate was fooled, will change direction. Obama has already dropped off the green bandwagon.

Al Gore has estate planned himself, separating from his wife, of 40 years, when they suddenly realised that they were incompatible, and putting a swag of assets in her name, then placing those he retains in a trust.

He has obtained huge funds from investors for "green" projects which will be rendered worthless when the truth seeps in, and politicians have to align themselves with reality.

When bigmouth Al is sued for the losses, there will be nothing in the bin to cover the verdicts.
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 2 September 2010 4:22:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ALGOREisRICH

Thanks for link. Heard Stern talking the other day about the temperatures being at a certain level 14 million years ago. I did not know whether to laugh or cry at such stupidity. It was said with a straight face and to think our Government has been totally conned by this Greens religion. I tend to think that if people are gullible enough to vote for these people with such idiotic faith then we must be all to wealthy. More billions down the drain as people starve to death.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 2 September 2010 4:54:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gullibility is rampant, stick to what the scientists are saying, not the wack-jobs, try
http://www.bom.gov.au/inside/eiab/State-of-climate-2010-updated.pdf
for a basic update of what's happened in the last 50 years, these aren't based on proxy values.
I think we need a list of those that do believe that AGW is occurring and those that don't to be published so future generations can know who to ridicule, mark john conley, yes AGW is occurring and CO2 is partly responsible and the 3% that we are contributing is 3% more than the earth can handle in such a short time period
Posted by justoneperson, Wednesday, 22 September 2010 10:47:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why do you not refer to the science, before making these statements, justoneperson?

The IPCC have no science backing their opinion that AGW is “very likely”.

The settled and accepted science is that global warming (and cooling) is governed by natural cycles, with no evidence of any measureable effect by human emissions.

The “very likely” opinion of the IPCC is backed by five of the seven scientists who reviewed it. Another 55 scientists, of the “Climategate” variety (i.e. closely involved with the IPCC), endorse it.

Part of the backing of this now threadbare opinion was the anticipation at the time that satellite instruments would show a “hotspot” in the troposphere, which would be the “signature” for AGW.

When this did not happen, did we have an announcement of “No AGW”? No, we had an announcement that the scientific instruments must be faulty, as they did not back the fabricated IPCC propaganda.

A petition asking that no action be taken on AGW, until there is some scientific backing for the assertion, is signed by 31,000 scientists, with more signatures constantly being added.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 22 September 2010 11:19:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo Lane, the IPCC reports are FULL of evidence of AGW and CO2 as the main driver.
Select a topic, any topic which supports your stance, and then let's discuss.
I love the 'accepted' opinion. What bollocks. Amongst deniers yeah. Amongst climate scientists, those who actually study the subject, what was that US study, 97% think AGW is occurring.
And the 31,000 scientists, humbug, they've got names of architects, and engineers and so many with no details whatsoever of credentials. Who put that together, mmmmmh, I wouldn't be pushing that one Leo.
Now a topic, mark conley
Posted by justoneperson, Wednesday, 22 September 2010 12:46:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The topic, justoneperson, is scientific evidence of AGW.

Contrary to assertions by uninformed people like you, there is no scientific evidence of of any effect by human emissions on global warming, in the IPCC Report, or anywhere else.

If there were, the IPCC would put it forward, instead of relying on an unsupported opinion, not a scientific opinion, but an opinion that it is "very likely" that human emissions contribute to global warming.

If you find any science, justoneperson, then you have done better than the IPCC is able to do.

You say it is in the IPCC Report. Well, find it, just one piece of evidence of AGW, and give us all the reference, particularly the IPCC, as they obviously do not know of it.

How many of the 31,000 scientists who say there is no proof of AGW do you say are architects and engineers, and on what basis? There are 50 times the 60 scientists that endorse the IPCC's guess that it is "very likely", even if 1000 of them are architects and engineers, as you wildly assert.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 22 September 2010 6:29:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo, congrats for using your name, that's on the list. Not sure at what level you are ill-informed so i thought i would start with the article. firstly the graph used, the UAH data, if we extend the UAH data back to 1950 you get http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/04/climate-scientist-bashing/
which puts it into context
Note 3 are from surface, 2 (including UAH)are satellite. Note the symmetry, amazing! The spike at 1998, the two satellites recording higher temp's, as they "measure the temp of the middle troposphere, the variatiosn of which can differ from those fo the surface temperature on short time scales"
Posted by justoneperson, Thursday, 23 September 2010 10:42:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo just read your first post, "sea levels not rising", wrong, see
http://www.bom.gov.au/inside/eiab/State-of-climate-2010-updated.pdf

(Data limited to Australia, not global), but from 1870 to 2007, the global average sea level rose by close to 200mm. Sea levels rose at an average of 1.7mm per year during the 20th century and about 3.0mm per year from 1993-2009. These levels are global averages and because of the differing movements of ocean currents around the globe, results vary from place to place.

Additionally
Since 1960 the mean temperature in Australia has increased by about 0.7 °C .
The number of days with record hot temperatures has increased each decade over the past 50 years
There have been fewer record cold days each decade
2000 to 2009 was Australia’s warmest decade on record

And you mention the buffoon Monckton. This explains your ignorance, if you believe his misinformation.
Posted by justoneperson, Thursday, 23 September 2010 10:58:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Apologies, the "(Data limited to Australia, not global)," was meant to be added at the beginning of the following paragraph, pertaining to temperatures.
Posted by justoneperson, Thursday, 23 September 2010 11:00:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The conversation, justoneperson, is about AGW, the alleged input of human emissions to global warming, not about global warming.

Global warming exists, no dispute about that, but it has yet to be shown that human emissions have any measureable effect on it.

I understand your confusion, since the whole purpose of the IPCC is to mislead people into believing that humans have input into global warming.

If they do, the effect is not of any significance, and requires no action, because it has not been detected, much less quantified.

The IPCC were formed to investigate human effect on climate. There is none, of any significance, so the IPCC has no basis for existence, unless it misleads people into believing in AGW.

The IPCC have worked from climate modelling, to make predictions. Everyone knew that climate modelling is not a basis for predictions. The IPCC have proved this, since they have never produced a correct prediction.

By the way, you have referred us to the site of Michael Mann, one of the main Climategate miscreants, so it is not a site for trustworthy information on climate. His function is to push the IPCC line.
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 23 September 2010 11:08:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Your first post this thread, Leo Lane, contained a statement claiming sea levels "haven't risen".
My post was attempting to correct your misapprehension by quoting the data source. It incidentally had some further data which is relevant to the AGW 'conversation', which i included.
No confusion, climates are always changing it's just this time mankind's activities have led to an anomalous global temperature rise, above that caused by 'natural' forces.
Posted by justoneperson, Thursday, 23 September 2010 4:52:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The greatest expert on sea levels is Dr. Nils Morner, who did a report for the IPCC which they ignored, as it did not suit their alarmist agenda.

The following is an extract from a recent article.

“…the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.
Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

You need to learn to distinguish, justoneperson, between alarmist nonsense, as you receive from websites like realclimate, and from the IPCC, and real science.

There is no science to back any assertion that human emissions contribute to global warming, just an alarmist unscientific guess from the IPCC that it is “very likely”.
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 23 September 2010 5:16:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Greatest expert on sea level", in his own mind, see http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf its not far down the first page
Apart from himself and you denier/doubters/skeptics he's not highly thought of, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/15/ipcc-sea-level
a "quote from a letter from the International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA), in which they disown Morner and his remarks.
Apparently he ignores satellite altimeter records, he and from what i read he alone thinks they're incorrectly calibrated. Apparently this is one of the reasons the IPCC think so 'highly' of him.
You quote from a Christopher booker article, sorry tooo easy for an ad hom, christopher booker, a journalist who thinks passive smoking, asbestos, and BSE aren't dangerous and believes in 'intelligent design'....jeez leo you should have checked him before using him, how embarrasing for you!
Posted by ASECONDOPINION, Thursday, 23 September 2010 10:31:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy